MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2942140091 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12950

The World Through Technology: The Possibility of Politics in Modernity

2018· dissertation· en· W2942140091 on OpenAlexaff
Mason Krawczyk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestiny (ISS module)PoliticsAction (physics)ModernityEpistemologyOntologyPolitical actionEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines how technology underpins our modern understanding of self and other as political actors.As such, it also functions as an attempt to study modernity and its most salient idiosyncrasies.My paper begins by accepting as a basis the phenomenological approach to fundamental ontology and technology put forward by Martin Heidegger.Drawing on Heidegger, I contend that man and his world have been enframed.In effect, this new world has ushered in a momentous shift in both perspective and understanding that remains to be fully understood.Following this, I venture to pinpoint why the centrality of Death as negate-ive, coupled with curiosity and humankind's insatiable pining for freedom, has delivered man to this technological destiny.In the third chapter, I examine the polis/oikos distinction in modernity, paying particular mind to the social realm and the internet as an appendage of technology.In the latter portion of this chapter, I reason that political action in a world given over to technology is that which exposes, disrupts, and resists the parameters of thought and action determined by technopower.In the final chapter, I examine how modern political institutions stifle the possibility of politically acting.Here, I focus particularly on the public affairs apparatus as antithetical to the common understanding of politics.Accordingly, I conclude by determining that all true political action in the modern age must take place over -and against -technology.iii Acknowledgements To my grandfather, parents, and brothers, who have inspired me enough to keep thinking and creating for a lifetime.For Doug, Joey, and Jordan, who have taught me that humor is therapy, closeness is not a distance, and that life is to be lived, not watched.And, lastly, because of my partner, Keisha, who has shown me immeasurable support, love, and kindness during moments of uncertainty and doubt.Chapters 1, 2, and 3 were initially written for the classes of Professors Newell, Darby, and Jaeger respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.038
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Media and Politics→French-language works237,207→